If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A Five-Way Linux Distribution Comparison In 2010

Phoronix: A Five-Way Linux Distribution Comparison In 2010

With many Linux distributions receiving major updates in recent weeks and months we have carried out a five-way Linux distribution comparison of openSUSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, PCLinuxOS, and Arch Linux. We have quite a number of tests comparing the 32-bit performance of these popular Linux distributions on older PC hardware.

ZOMG let the distro wars begin . Nice article, it is interesting to see how they all compare together. I use Arch because it's rolling release and I setup what I want. I run into problems with this from time to time. Hell the Intel 2.10 driver broke my DPMS on my laptop and I couldn't close the lid without my system freaking out.

On a side note it would be interesting to see a comparison between x86 and x64 for some distros. See which one is faster and where.

Archlinux doesn't have a stock configuration. No preference towards video drivers is made, there is no default filesystem, hardly anything is installed by 'default'. X isn't even installed.

Most Archlinux users actually end up using a standalone window manager instead of a DE. So I'm wondering how you could do this in stock configuration. Not to mention that since arch is rolling release, getting the older version of the software from May would be a real pain and would have to be completely manual.

Now I have to so many of my friends who flaunt Arch Linux to shove it!!!

I can't read this, it's not in English.

Originally Posted by LinuxID10T

Seriously though, I have been so sick of this aura of superiority that Arch Linux users seem to develop.

There is no "aura of superiority". What that forum thread I linked to says is that the article lacks a lot of important data, it completely disregards the fact that Arch has no "version 2010.5" whatsoever and makes a comparison based on the writers ill-informed point of view.

There is no "aura of superiority". What that forum thread I linked to says is that the article lacks a lot of important data, it completely disregards the fact that Arch has no "version 2010.5" whatsoever and makes a comparison based on the writers ill-informed point of view.

And you are not trolling yourself? Bashing GTK? Stop trying to start a flame war.

You should rather say this to the idiot who started to blame KDE. Gnome fanboys can blame KDE and it's ok, but if someone disagrees then it's an atempt to start a flame war? Even after someone else atempt? Btw. this was just a painfull truth. :>

There is no "aura of superiority". What that forum thread I linked to says is that the article lacks a lot of important data, it completely disregards the fact that Arch has no "version 2010.5" whatsoever and makes a comparison based on the writers ill-informed point of view.

So stop trolling.

Sorry, I forgot a word in there. It should read "Now I have to tell so many of my friends who flaunt Arch Linux to shove it!!!" Seriously, many all of the people that I know (in person at that) have a real aura of superiority.